目的:本综述的目的是检查测量经皮失水(TEWL)的装置的可靠性和测量误差。
背景:TEWL是皮肤的生理特性,当表皮受损时,其增加。是的,因此,皮肤屏障完整性的常用措施。测量TEWL的设备可以打开,半开放或封闭室。可靠性研究检查测量的一致性,和/或响应性,而测量误差评分绝对是由于变化源引起的误差量。
方法:包括检查TEWL测量装置的可靠性和/或测量误差的研究。仅报告TEWL结果测量而不检查可靠性和/或测量误差的研究被排除。
方法:搜索策略旨在定位已发表和未发表的研究。搜索的数据库包括PubMed,Embase,CINAHL和WebofScience,利用确定的关键词,仅限于英语学习。搜索灰色文献来源以识别任何未发表的文献。然后由两名评审员评估使用纳入标准进行的研究选择的方法学质量,并利用基于CONSIS的健康测量指标(COSMIN)偏倚工具的风险选择标准来评估结果测量工具的可靠性和测量误差。
结果:在纳入的38项研究中,共检查了22个装置。研究设计的质量平均被评为“足够”,但是可靠性和测量误差统计方法平均被评为“可疑”。
结论:发现TEWL测量设备具有良好的可靠性,并且经常与其他设备相关。然而,测量误差是高度可变的,但在体外条件下有所改善。未来的研究在设计研究时应考虑偏倚因素的风险。
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this review is to examine the reliability and measurement error of devices that measure transepidermal water loss (TEWL).
BACKGROUND: TEWL is a physiological property of skin which increases when the epidermis is damaged. It is, therefore, a commonly utilised measure of skin barrier integrity. Devices measuring TEWL are available as open, semi-open or closed chamber. Studies of reliability examine the consistency of measurement, and/or responsiveness whereas measurement error scores in absolute terms the amount of error due to sources of variation.
METHODS: Studies examining the reliability and/or measurement error of TEWL measurement devices were included. Studies that only report on measurement of TEWL outcomes without examination of reliability and/or measurement error were excluded.
METHODS: The search strategy aimed to locate published and unpublished studies. Databases searched included PubMed, Embase, CINAHL and Web of Science, utilising identified keywords and limited to studies in English. Grey literature sources were searched to identify any unpublished documents. Study selection using the inclusion criteria was then assessed by two reviewers for methodological quality utilising the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) risk of bias tool to assess the reliability and measurement error of outcome measurement instruments.
RESULTS: A total of 22 devices were examined in the 38 included studies. The quality of study design was on average rated as \'Adequate\' however reliability and measurement error statistical methods were on average rated as \'Doubtful\'.
CONCLUSIONS: TEWL measurement devices were found to demonstrate good reliability and frequently correlated with other devices. However, measurement error was highly variable but improves under in vitro conditions. Future research should consider risk of bias factors when designing studies.